2.Councillor Tom Hollis declared a Non Disclosable
Pecuniary/Other Interest in respect of Application V/2018/0212, Mr
M. Fishleigh, Outline Application for Demolition of Existing
Industrial Premises and Construction of Up to 23 Dwellings with
Associated Access and Parking, The Pattern House, Crossley Avenue,
Huthwaite. His interest arose from the
fact that he had met with residents but in doing so had not
expressed an opinion at any point.

3.Councillor Tom Hollis also declared a Non
Disclosable Pecuniary/Other Interest in respect of Application
V/2019/0102, JCS Camping, Change of Use from Paddock to Caravan
Park, The Campsite, Silverhill Lane, Teversal. His interest arose from the fact that his family
(albeit estranged from him) currently lived near to the site and he
had met with both the applicant and objectors but in doing so had
not expressed an opinion at any point.

4.Councillor Helen-Ann Smith declared a Non
Disclosable Pecuniary/Other Interest in respect of the
undermentioned applications. Her interests arose from the fact that
she had spoken to objectors to the applications but in doing so had
not expressed an opinion at any point.

5.Councillor David Martin declared a Non Disclosable
Pecuniary/Other Interest in respect of ApplicationV/2019/0068, Mr G Hodgman, Dwelling, Land Adjacent
15 Recreation Street, Selston. His interest arose from the fact
that he was known to the applicant.

1.V/2019/0038, Muse Developments Limited,
Reserved Matters Permission for Development of 45 Dwellings, 2
Flats and Commercial Space, Together with Associated Infrastructure
and Roads, Land to the East of Hurricane Road
Hucknall

In
accordance with the Council’s Policy for dealing with late
matters in relation to planning applications (Minute No. D4.17,
1993/94 refers), officers proceeded to give a verbal report as to
additional comments received in relation to the application as
follows:-

A
further 10 objections had been received from residents. They had
raised concerns regarding the following:

•Two units is insufficient and a larger store/pub
should be provided.

•Location of retail units will attract anti-social
behaviour.

•Insufficient parking provision for the two retail
units.

•Misrepresentation about the provision of
facilities.

•Questions over how many stores and chains were
approached.

•More traffic will be bought onto Watnall
Road.

•Insufficient infrastructure to accommodate the
development.

•The original plan showed the retail provision
elsewhere on site to benefit residents on the new estate and
existing residents further afield.

•Density of housing across the development is too
high.

•The consultation process was
insufficient.

In
response, officers advised that the points raised were covered
within the report. The Applicant had submitted marketing evidence
showing a number of chains were approached and no national
operators could be secured. The Highways Authority have also noted
that the location within the scheme and off the round-about was
preferable from a safety perspective being at the heart of the
development for residents. The number
of dwellings remained within the number approved under the outline
consent and substantial S106 contributions had been received toward
infrastructure.

The
consultation process had been undertaken in accordance with
legislation with neighbouring residents adjoining the site being
consulted, along with a site notice and a press notice giving 21
days to make their comments.

Mr.
V. Gallagher, an objector to the application and Mr. D. Needham, as
the Applicant, took the opportunity to address the Committee in
respect of this matter and Members were offered the opportunity to
clarify any points raised during the submissions as
required.

It
was moved and seconded that conditional consent be granted as per
officer’s recommendation.

In
accordance with the Council’s Policy for dealing with late
matters in relation to planning applications (Minute No. D4.17,
1993/94 refers), officers proceeded to give a verbal report as to
additional comments received in relation to the application as
follows:-

Two
residents had written in objecting to the application and raising
concerns surrounding the consultation process.

Officers confirmed that neighbouring residents were consulted,
along with site notices and a press notice giving 21 days to make
comments.